--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha" wrote: > > This debate started out as a believers-versus- > nonbelievers debate. Then, it shifted into being a > Christians/Catholics-versus-nonbelievers. Now it is > being given a Catholics-versus-Hindus twist. This > is unfair. The only thing the debate is, is it's > boring (as is any debate that goes on, and on, and > on). > Mario clarifies: > For anyone to even suggest that Goanet is any kind of a religious forum is scurrilous and beneath contempt. > As one of those who participated, I disagree totally with the way Fred has framed the subject of this debate. I reject the characterization that it was ever a "Christians/Catholics versus nonbelievers" debate. Anyone who made comments about Christians versus Hindus missed the point of the original debate altogether. > The original debate was about the fallacy and impossibility of making universal, unconditional moral equivalencies between the well known moral codes of organized morally based groups, including certain atheist groups like Jains and Buddhists who apparently do not believe in a supreme being, and those of unorganized individual atheists, simply because we have no way of knowing what those are. Thus, Christians and Hindus remain on the same side of the original debate with all other morally based groups, as organized morally based groups. > Furthermore, no one denigrated the moral codes of the unorganized individual atheists, and I am on record as saying that I know such atheists personally whose moral codes are excellent, and may even be superior to those of an organized religion. > The debate deteriorated when some unorganized individual atheists on Goanet with long histories of religion-bashing demanded that we accept the notion that the unknown home-made moral codes of unorganized individual atheists are equivalent to the highly developed and well known moral codes that members of organized groups subscribe to. They then used bogus statistics to try and prove that religious moral codes were "fake", one even tried to seriously postulate the comical notion that the Golden Rule may encourage rapists to rape, and another began promoting the comical notion that Hitler was a staunch Catholic simply because he apparently pretended to be, all this as part of a further attempt to besmirch religion. > How any rational person can define an irrational homicidal megalomaniac like Hitler by what he says and pretends to do, and not on what he is known to have actually done, is beyond me. >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
